>Knowing all the above, its reasonable to ask if the history we have been taught is entirely free of philo-semitism. This is one reason 'holocaust deniers' exist - they reason that, since we've been told a pack of lies about the position of Jews in the world post-1945, well maybe we've been told lies about before that too (which doesn't mean their conclusions are correct).

Wrong.

Holocaust denial exists as a continuation of anti-Semitism before 1945.

It's no more complicated than that.

{snip}

>So for you to reiterate these stories like we're in a free country is not exactly sticking your neck out. Telling the time-worn narratives of Roman persecution, Christian anti-semitism, etc., etc., is hardly necessary. We get that all the time. What's needed is research into the other side of the story. And most importantly, the aggressive defense of people who try to do that research.

Once I understand better what that consists of, from your point of view, then I can respond. In general terms, that certainly seems reasonable. But I flatly refuse to accept the idea that in order to express solidarity with Palestine, I have to rub elbows with people who preach that Jews drink babies' blood.